Lincoln was pretty clear in his first inaugural address that the United States government would not recognize as legitimate any state's attempt to secede from the Union and that he would abide by the Constitution's command that he faithfully execute the laws of the United States in every state in the country, north, south, east and west. There was no mistaking his intention.

The states which had declared a "secession" had thereby threatened to immediately strip every American citizen in those states of both their American citizenship and their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Those American citizens living in Southern states had direct Constitutional and political bonds with every other American citizen in the country ("We the people of the United States") and those bonds could not be legally severed by any group of other people living in those states.

I recognize that slaveholders were only attempting to protect what they viewed as their human property (slaves). I recognize that they honestly believed that their position as parasites was threatened. I recognize that they had become addicted to their indolent lifestyles and that many were afraid that they could not make their way in this world without the support of their slaves. I do recognize that they were desperate and felt they had no choice. I do recognize how dependent they had become.

Nowadays, nearly everyone in the South is grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaves. Most are also grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaveholders from their addiction to slavery. Granted, some of the slaveholders were unable to make it on their own, but most regained their self-respect and were successfully reconstructed.

221
posted on 09/03/2013 4:22:08 PM PDT
by Tau Food
(Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)

IOW, if in 1968 there had been a true attempt at revolution by lefties, or if there were one today, those of us who prefer the Constitution and the system it set up would have had no right to resist them.

From a legal standpoint, there was no difference between the South's rebellion in the 1860's and the Watts Rebellion in 1965 or the Detroit riots in 1967. The Union went into the South to restore order and the LAPD and California National Guard did the same thing in Watts. In both cases, civilians were killed.

The strategy of "secession" was to reduce the power/influence of the government in Washington and to increase the power/influence of the state governments because the slaveholders needed the machinery of the state governments to perpetuate their abuse of human rights (slavery) and the slaveholders were concerned that they could no longer count on support from the government in Washington.

To hear some folks nowadays, "secession" was supposedly about about protecting human liberty and personal freedom from a tyrannical government in Washington. In fact, "secession" was actually about increasing the power of the government at the state level so that slaveholders could continue to suppress human liberty and personal freedom. The slaveholders were Statists with a capital S.

222
posted on 09/03/2013 7:37:22 PM PDT
by Tau Food
(Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)

Revolutions are by definition illegal, the violent overthrow of law in the service, at least in theory, of a higher good. The Founders never claimed their revolt was legal, since they knew it wasn’t.

They just claimed that when an existing government is using law to oppress the people, they have a moral right to overthrow that government and its laws and replace them with one that more effectively protects their inalienable rights.

In fact, "secession" was actually about increasing the power of the government at the state level so that slaveholders could continue to suppress human liberty and personal freedom. The slaveholders were Statists with a capital S.

Most people are happy to be, if they are in control of the State.

From the Founding thru the election of 1860, the South had dominated the Federal Government. Secession took place in 1860 because they recognized they had finally lost that control.

They believed, probably correctly, that control was necessary to protect slavery.

Lincoln and the Republicans spoke a good bit about having no constitutional right to interfere with slavery within a state, but there was a great deal they could do to gum up the slaveworks without entering a State.

For instance, Congress could perfectly constitutionally prohibit the interstate commerce in slaves, even between slave states.

If effectively enforced, this would immediately result in a huge rise in price of slaves in the Deep South and a catastrophic drop in price in Upper South and Border states. Virginia in particular had supported itself for decades primarily by selling slaves South.

The Constitution requires return of fugitive slaves, but not how the return be performed. Congress could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which by default would have returned the process to the states, which would be free to introduce such onerous procedures as to in practice prohibit return. Or Congress could "reform" the FSA and add procedures in Federal courts that would have the same effect.

The Congress elected in 1860/61 would have not had anywhere near the votes to pass such laws, but pretty obviously it was only matter of time till one did.

Revolutions are by definition illegal, the violent overthrow of law in the service, at least in theory, of a higher good. The Founders never claimed their revolt was legal, since they knew it wasnt.

They just claimed that when an existing government is using law to oppress the people, they have a moral right to overthrow that government and its laws and replace them with one that more effectively protects their inalienable rights.

Well, I guess I'm having trouble finding any "higher good" (even in theory) that "secessionists" were pursuing. As I've said, I think that the slaveholders, like all parasites, were with each generation becoming more and more dependent upon their slaves to care and provide for them and in that sense, weaker and less capable. I believe that they correctly foresaw that the United States government might soon represent a threat to their addictive lifestyle. They knew that without the assistance of government, they faced rejection by their host in the form of slave revolts. "Secession" was designed to eliminate that federal threat and to increase the power of the more local state governments which could be counted upon to protect their addictive, parasitic relationship.

These addicts were sick people. I can't find any "higher good" (even in theory) that was associated with their desperate desire/effort to perpetuate their addiction, their parasitic behavior, their increasing dependence and their physical, moral and mental deterioration.

What slaveholders needed was outside help and that's what Lincoln and the Union wound up giving to them. Addicts never like forced abstinence and rehab and the slaveholders didn't all like abolition and reconstruction. But, the South is much the better for it. And, most Southerners know that.

Southern slavery is gone, gone for good. It's not coming back, and I think it's important for everyone to know and accept that.

225
posted on 09/04/2013 6:31:14 AM PDT
by Tau Food
(Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)

Well, I guess I'm having trouble finding any "higher good" (even in theory) that "secessionists" were pursuing.

I quite agree. However.

As I've said, I think that the slaveholders, like all parasites, were with each generation becoming more and more dependent upon their slaves to care and provide for them and in that sense, weaker and less capable.

Those "less capable" slaveholders proved remarkably capable at the hardest task of all, war against a superior foe. Not capable enough, as it turned out, but as valiant an effort as any group in the history of the world.

"Secession" was designed to ...increase the power of the more local state governments which could be counted upon to protect their addictive, parasitic relationship.

I don't think so. State governments would merely retain their existing powers under the CSA, not gain new ones. Except of course the obvious recognition that they could split whenever they felt like it.

Those "less capable" slaveholders proved remarkably capable at the hardest task of all, war against a superior foe. Not capable enough, as it turned out, but as valiant an effort as any group in the history of the world.

That's just so much baloney.

Most addicts are grateful to be free of their debilitating addictions, even if they were forced to give them up. But, perhaps you've heard a few say things like, "I was doing fine, it wasn't hurting me a bit. I was really in full control of all those things in my life that might have looked like chaos." Or, maybe you've heard some say, "I could have quit whenever I wanted to. " Or, "I was just getting around to quitting myself. You didn't need to force me." There's always a few who say things like that and some of them even believe it. Some of them just miss in some sort of sick, romantic way, the old addictive habits and lifestyle.

Slaveholders as a class had become sick, weak people by the 1860's and that weakness was reflected in the weak, incompetent decisions that they made. Their eventual doom was inevitable, whether at the hands of some outside force like Lincoln and the Union or at the hands of the slaves and serfs that surrounded them. This world eats the weak and that's what happened to the slaveholders. Any fight you saw was attributable to the courage shown by some of the serfs and others who were either forced or duped into fighting what nevertheless always remained a fight to protect the lifestyles of slaveholders.

And, yes, the slaveholders were Statists. They were dependent upon government to protect their lifestyles just as members of our current welfare class are dependent upon government to protect their lifestyles. A culture of dependency is never a good thing. There isn't anything noble or romantic about dependency.

228
posted on 09/04/2013 7:45:26 AM PDT
by Tau Food
(Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)

And there are literally many thousands more. I’ve been called anti-southern on this forum, but I recognize and honor the valor of those who fought for what they believed in, however much I disagree with their cause.

I suspect you would find it quite impossible to find any of their opponents who ever referred to them as “sick, weak people.” LOL

Sherman, i acknowledged in my last post (228) and elsewhere that there were individuals who in battle displayed great ability and courage. You will find such people in any signigicant population.

I said that "[s]laveholders as a class had become sick, weak people by the 1860's and that weakness was reflected in the weak, incompetent decisions that they made." I don't know how anyone can read Mississippi's declaration of "secession" and conclude otherwise. The slaveholders go on and on and on in that document about their parasitic institution of slavery (by which they lived off the stolen labor of others), that they had become totally dependent upon their slaves because "none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun," that their parasitic relationship to slaves was being threatened by "mandates of abolition," and that they felt that they were being forced to choose between "submission to the mandates of abolition" or "dissolution of the union." Then, toward the end of the document, they confess that it wasn't really even a matter of choice ("[Secession] is not a matter of choice, but of necessity.") That's the language of an addict - "I cannot give up my habit." As a class, the slaveholders could see no way forward in a world without slaves to take care of them, a world in which they would have to become self-reliant and capable of caring for and supporting themselves. .

These people were so enveloped in their culture of dependency that they were prepared to risk the lives, the property and the individual rights of each of their neighbors (many of whom had nothing to do with slavery) so that they wouldn't have to stand on their own two feet and face the world without their slaves to care for and support them. It doesn't get much sicker than that. If at times you forget just how weak and pathetic this class of people had become, then just pick up their declaration of "secession" and read it again.

Reluctantly, Lincoln rescued the slaveholders from their addiction to slavery. It's a shame that he wasn't around to personally assist with the reconstruction of these folks because I think he would have done a much better job of that than the Congress which survived him.

Like I say, most Southerners today are very grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaves and most are also grateful that Lincoln and the Union freed the slaveholders from their own sick addiction to slavery. Descendants of slaveholders can thank Lincoln for any self-respect and self-reliance that they now enjoy.

Again, there simply was nothing that was noble or romantic about the slaveholders' role in any of this. I feel very sorry for anyone who worships them or their cause.

231
posted on 09/04/2013 4:29:31 PM PDT
by Tau Food
(Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)

If you live in or traveling to the Atlanta area be sure to visit Sweetwater State Park located west of Atlanta. It contains ruins of a cotton mill destroyed during the Civil War.

In July 1864 Union forces reached the mill. The mill was burned down and civilian mill workers (only women and children) were arrested and the women charged with treason. Eventually they were sent North, most to Indiana. Few returned to Georgia.

Trod Upon: "It was Lincolns decision whether to allow the peaceful secession to stand or whether to retain the South by force."

Sorry, but you have it backwards. Federal property remained Federal property regardless of what certain secessionists declared. Secessionists' early 1861 seizures of Federal properties were all acts of rebellion or war. Then Confederates' April 12 military assault on Federal troops in Federal Fort Sumter was a major act of war against the United States, equivalent to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

And Lincoln's original proclamation after Fort Sumter specified only

"to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union"

To which the Confederacy responded with a formal declaration of war against the United States on May 6, 1861. At that point, Lincoln's only decision to make was: victory or defeat.

Lincoln chose victory.

Trod Upon: "Lincoln was strolling down the path of war by refusing to abandon Sumter once South Carolina left the Union."

Remember, the British held onto forts in United States Northwest Territory for over 30 years -- from the end of the Revolutionary War until the end of the War of 1812. However irritating those forts might have been to our Founders, they never made British-controlled forts an excuse for starting war.

So the choice for war was made by Jefferson Davis, eagerly pushed on by Fire Eaters and many others of the Southern Slave Power.

Atlantan: "If you live in or traveling to the Atlanta area be sure to visit Sweetwater State Park located west of Atlanta."

Thanks, I've never actually lived in Atlanta, but years ago spent many happy weeks working there. Did not know then to look up Sweetwater State Park.

Atlantan: "In July 1864 Union forces reached the mill. The mill was burned down and civilian mill workers (only women and children) were arrested and the women charged with treason."

Remember that much of Atlanta was destroyed not by Sherman's Union troops but by Confederate General Hood's efforts to deny military supplies to the Union.

And if these so-called "civilian mill workers" were in fact slaves, or former slaves, then their failure to return might be understandable. I'm only saying, there's obviously more to this story than meets the eye here.

Atlantan: "The mill was built by slaves, but the mill workers were probably white."

Your word "probably" here speaks volumes. It tells us we don't really know what happened, to whom or by whom. The "fog of war" covers up important details, and so people can spin the truth to support their own political agendas.

But the important point alleged here and in other threads is "mass atrocities" against Southern civilians. Even at it's worst interpretation, your story here does not support such claims.

And thanks for the information about the Sweetwater Creek History Walk! I only wish I could be there to enjoy it. :-)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.